The inclination of the second stage NOTAM should indicate a dogleg during launch. Can someone check that?

A dog-leg would be a rather silly waste of fuel, since the vehicle *could* launch directly into an orbit with an inclination between 57 and 62 degrees, if a higher inclination were desired.

There could be issues with the IIP trace going over Newfoundland. It can (has) been done, but makes Flight Safety issues easier to avoid to just fly a dogleg, especially if you have a lot of excess performance.

The MECO time is, to my knowledge, the earliest for a Falcon 9 mission. 2 minutes and 17 seconds after launch. This gives the first stage more fuel than the CRS-9, CRS-10, and Orbcomm-2 flights.

Max-Q also happens sooner than ever, maybe this is the first block 4 core, with higher trust. If I remember correctly this core did a full duration burn at Mcgregor. I don't recall if anyone ever gave a good explanation for the longer burn.

The MECO time is, to my knowledge, the earliest for a Falcon 9 mission. 2 minutes and 17 seconds after launch. This gives the first stage more fuel than the CRS-9, CRS-10, and Orbcomm-2 flights.

Max-Q also happens sooner than ever, maybe this is the first block 4 core, with higher trust. If I remember correctly this core did a full duration burn at Mcgregor. I don't recall if anyone ever gave a good explanation for the longer burn.

The MECO time is, to my knowledge, the earliest for a Falcon 9 mission. 2 minutes and 17 seconds after launch. This gives the first stage more fuel than the CRS-9, CRS-10, and Orbcomm-2 flights.

Max-Q also happens sooner than ever, maybe this is the first block 4 core, with higher trust. If I remember correctly this core did a full duration burn at Mcgregor. I don't recall if anyone ever gave a good explanation for the longer burn.

Or the sat could be extremely light, or maybe even both.

The impact of spacecraft mass on the tie of Max-Q has to be very small, while a change in total thrust has a very large impact. Higher thrust means higher acceleration means higher velocity at a given altitude and going supersonic in denser air. Our skilled contributors can verify this or dispute it quantitatively.

This all (inclusive the the Lewis and Clark logo) makes me think of a pretty small area surveillance payload, perhaps something comparable to FORMOSAT-5. Although i would expect a sunsynchronous orbit for this. Or a small SAR area surveillance satellite.

...but per NRO request, live commentary and tracking of 2nd stage will cutoff at payload fairing jettison. Live feed will then transition to discuss only the first stage as it attempts an RTLS landing back at CCAFS.

Is there going to be a post-launch press conference, with someone from spacex, and a sheet of paper saying 'no comment' on the NRO side?

The MECO time is, to my knowledge, the earliest for a Falcon 9 mission. 2 minutes and 17 seconds after launch. This gives the first stage more fuel than the CRS-9, CRS-10, and Orbcomm-2 flights.

Max-Q also happens sooner than ever, maybe this is the first block 4 core, with higher trust. If I remember correctly this core did a full duration burn at Mcgregor. I don't recall if anyone ever gave a good explanation for the longer burn.

Or the sat could be extremely light, or maybe even both.

The impact of spacecraft mass on the tie of Max-Q has to be very small, while a change in total thrust has a very large impact. Higher thrust means higher acceleration means higher velocity at a given altitude and going supersonic in denser air. Our skilled contributors can verify this or dispute it quantitatively.

Faster acceleration and earlier MECO means less gravity loss, sooner boost back and less downrange distance to make up. The fuel saving should more than make up for higher friction at Max-Q.

The MECO time is, to my knowledge, the earliest for a Falcon 9 mission. 2 minutes and 17 seconds after launch. This gives the first stage more fuel than the CRS-9, CRS-10, and Orbcomm-2 flights.

Max-Q also happens sooner than ever, maybe this is the first block 4 core, with higher trust. If I remember correctly this core did a full duration burn at Mcgregor. I don't recall if anyone ever gave a good explanation for the longer burn.

Or the sat could be extremely light, or maybe even both.

The impact of spacecraft mass on the tie of Max-Q has to be very small, while a change in total thrust has a very large impact. Higher thrust means higher acceleration means higher velocity at a given altitude and going supersonic in denser air. Our skilled contributors can verify this or dispute it quantitatively.

Faster acceleration and earlier MECO means less gravity loss, sooner boost back and less downrange distance to make up. The fuel saving should more than make up for higher friction at Max-Q.

Aerodynamic drag has a fairly small effect on fuel burn, but earlier Max-Q could have higher dynamic structural loads. The altitude and velocity data from previous flights show clear throttling through transsonic - but not at Max-Q, so it seems Falcon 9 has some structural margins to allow for more acceleration.

Could this be a NRO validation flight? So no real payload but some dummy satellite. The purpose would be to establish and validate all the NRO requirements on SpaceX. Can SpaceX actually guarantee the secrecy required for an NRO mission or is there some leak?

Could this be a NRO validation flight? So no real payload but some dummy satellite. The purpose would be to establish and validate all the NRO requirements on SpaceX. Can SpaceX actually guarantee the secrecy required for an NRO mission or is there some leak?

I doubt even NRO has the money to just send up a dummy payload.

An experimental payload - high risk, low price - is far more likely. So, a real payload but something that doesn't matter that much if something goes wrong (or leaks). Checking out SpaceX procedures "for reals" in preparation of future missions? Maybe a secondary objective.

Could this be a NRO validation flight? So no real payload but some dummy satellite. The purpose would be to establish and validate all the NRO requirements on SpaceX. Can SpaceX actually guarantee the secrecy required for an NRO mission or is there some leak?

I doubt even NRO has the money to just send up a dummy payload.

An experimental payload - high risk, low price - is far more likely. So, a real payload but something that doesn't matter that much if something goes wrong (or leaks). Checking out SpaceX procedures "for reals" in preparation of future missions? Maybe a secondary objective.

I very much doubt that leaks on even an experimental payload would be tolerated.